Western Soldiers out of Iraq

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

You would? Then why weren't you living in Pre-Invasion Afghanistan? They implemented shari'ah and I hear it wasn't pretty.

No they didn't! Neither does saudi arabia or iran. They mingle the laws of Allah with their own twisted man-made laws!

 

[renak]

Greetings,


This report says that Iyad Allawi believes there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. He would say that, though, wouldn't he? In the interview he sidesteps the question of whether he is a US stooge and even uses the diction of President Bush: "We are going to prevail." Anyway, Allawi's belief is neither here nor there. No evidence has yet surfaced on whether the alleged connection genuinely existed.



This article claims that Richard Clarke once believed there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, but that he doesn't any more.



I couldn't connect to this site for some reason.

So, basically, we're still waiting for any evidence that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

Renak, if you're prepared to base your view that the invasion of Iraq was justified on such flimsy evidence as this then I'm very surprised.

Peace

In 1999 Saddam Hussein offered asylum to Osama bin Laden, which is more than suspicious. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

It's being suggested that Saddam operated training camps for islamic terrorists. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

I could list many links, and those who do not support the US being in Iraq could list just as many links. Therefore, I will no longer debate this topic.

 

[HeiGou]

That's easy enough for you, YOU'RE NOT THE ONE BEING OPRESSED!

But what you do not understand is that there is a good reason why I am not oppressed and there is a good reason why all your brothers and sisters are. What do you think that is? I would argue that culture has a lot to do with it. So perhaps if you were interested in abolishing oppression you ought to listen to people who live without oppression? But of course if you are merely interested in oppressing others instead of being oppressed yourself, there is no point.

I root for there being a place somewhere in the world one day implementing shari'ah. Man i would migrate there faster than you can say 'hijrah'.

I am all for that. By all means, work to that end. Tell me, given you dislike of democracy how do you think that might arise except through oppression?

 

[HeiGou]

Well you say that, but has it not shown the american and british troops for what they are? Killing, torturing and beating innocent Iraqis?

It certainly has been an eye-opener for many people.

I doubt any muslim who follows the true teachings of Islam, the Qur'an and Sunnah, would ever condone beheadings and killings of any innocent people.

The two weasel words in that sentence being "true" and "innocent". As long as you can define the true teachings of Islam to your own satisfaction that is a bet you cannot lose. And what makes a person guilty?

The war in Iraq was illegal, first we are told WMD as well as other things, now we are told the war was to spread the ideolgy of democracy.

Actually George W Bush was clear that democracy was a goal all along. And the war was not illegal. The justification in a legal sense was the lack of implementation of UN resolutions.

Imagne if muslims invaded the USA or UK, to implement Shariah Law, the uproar would be unimaginable.

Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal. Even in Iraq the violence only comes from the Sunnis who fear democracy, not from the Kurds or the Shia.

Now other middle eastern countries are being targeted in order to spead the beliefs of certain people. And these certain people claim freedom yet they are determined to spread their beliefs and systems with violence and war.

Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

 

[hamzaa]

Peace, renak

Your pissing in the wind, to think those links which you have posted, prove saddam had connection with " Al- QAEDA"

 

[Khattab]

It certainly has been an eye-opener for many people.



The two weasel words in that sentence being "true" and "innocent". As long as you can define the true teachings of Islam to your own satisfaction that is a bet you cannot lose. And what makes a person guilty?

We dont define the teachings of Islam to our own wims and desires, as I have said previously, the teachings are the Qur'an and Sunnah and nowhere do you find the killing of innocent people as acceptable.


Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal. Even in Iraq the violence only comes from the Sunnis who fear democracy, not from the Kurds or the Shia.

Can you give me examples of when this was tried before, which muslim army attacked the UK and USA in order to implent Shariah Law.


Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

They must be saying "Hey, come and bomb us we want democracy!" Do you honestly beleive what you just said, the people in the middle east dont want to be invaded, the majority of them want peace and security, security in the fact that war wont be declared on them to spread "democracy" or any other reason for that matter.

Your opinion would be totally different if someone invaded the UK to spread Shariah Law, you would be against such actions. In a way its hyprocritical. Iraq has been destroyed, families and livelihoods have been taken away from people and all because people in the Middle East want "democracy". If Islam was spread in such ways during these times the out cry would be unimaginable, we would here it from all corners of the globe, but because it is your beliefs that are being spread then I guess its okay?

 

[HeiGou]

We dont define the teachings of Islam to our own wims and desires, as I have said previously, the teachings are the Qur'an and Sunnah and nowhere do you find the killing of innocent people as acceptable.

Who is this "we" you are talking about? It is clear that some Muslims do define the teachings of Islam in funny ways. Probably the majority of them. I am in no position to judge what the Quran or the Sunna say, but I accept your claims. The only problem is, again, that question of guilt. I expect that you and I do not share a definition of guilt that would make that a useful statement.

Of course. Muslims have tried that before all over the world and people tend to resist it. The difference here is that there is a vast well-spring of support for democracy all over the world and the resistence in Afghanistan has been minimal.

Can you give me examples of when this was tried before, which muslim army attacked the UK and USA in order to implent Shariah Law.

Not off hand. Although North Africans raided the coasts of England just as they did elsewhere. Nearly all over the world. Look at Spain. India.

Sounds like some Muslims really. Except the people of the Middle East want democracy.

They must be saying "Hey, come and bomb us we want democracy!" Do you honestly beleive what you just said, the people in the middle east dont want to be invaded, the majority of them want peace and security, security in the fact that war wont be declared on them to spread "democracy" or any other reason for that matter.

That is such an absurd leap from what I said. No doubt no one wants to be bombed. But they almost certainly do want democracy - however that is achieved. I never said they did not want to be not invaded. You invented that. They want peace, security and democracy. I expect that the more reasonable of them know that the greater risk is arrest and torture by their own government rather than a US attack.

Your opinion would be totally different if someone invaded the UK to spread Shariah Law, you would be against such actions. In a way its hyprocritical. Iraq has been destroyed, families and livelihoods have been taken away from people and all because people in the Middle East want "democracy". If Islam was spread in such ways during these times the out cry would be unimaginable, we would here it from all corners of the globe, but because it is your beliefs that are being spread then I guess its okay?

That is not why Iraq was attacked. Saddam would not comply with UN resolutions. They are not just my beliefs, they are the beliefs of most people in the world including Iraq. And they work in the sense that they produce a rich, content, civil society here on Earth. Most people want that too.

 

[renak]

Peace, renak

Your pissing in the wind, to think those links which you have posted, prove saddam had connection with " Al- QAEDA"

Peace Hamzaa, I'm not stating that these links PROVE the connection. These links simply provide another viewpoint. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove the connection at this point.

 

[Khattab]

Who is this "we" you are talking about? It is clear that some Muslims do define the teachings of Islam in funny ways. Probably the majority of them. I am in no position to judge what the Quran or the Sunna say, but I accept your claims. The only problem is, again, that question of guilt. I expect that you and I do not share a definition of guilt that would make that a useful statement.

The 'we' I am talking about is people who follow the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah, not a sect or someone who picks and chooses, but those who follow the way of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and companions.

Not off hand. Although North Africans raided the coasts of England just as they did elsewhere. Nearly all over the world. Look at Spain. India.

Spain was not invaded to spread 'Islam' or 'Shariah Law', but rather Musa ibn Nusair was requested by the Christian ruler to help against the Visigoths and thier leader Roderick who where oppressing and commiting injustices in Spain.

Similiarly in 'Sindh' or India, it was not to implement 'Shariah Law'. The muslims had defeated the Iranian empire, and many of their cheifs fled to 'Sindh' as well as parts of Turkistan and China, here they began preparing for war against the muslims. The King of Sindh as well as his armies had sided with the Iranians. During Uthman Bin Affans (ra) time, Yazid and Abdul Malik though Sindh was of concern there where more pressing issues so it was put to the side. However what sparked and attack was when the King of Sindh looted the boats of the muslims and took those on board as captives. After the request of Hajjaj Bin Yusuf was made to the King Of Sindh ie to punish those who looted the boat and return the captives was rejected, armies where sent to Sindh the last of those at the time being that of the victorious Muhammad Bin Qasim and six thousand soldiers from Syria. Muhammad Bin Qasim himself was known for his justice, humility and genorosity.

So you see to say these events where based on trying to implement 'Shariah Law' in the countries mentioned you are wrong, because that imply wasnt the case.

That is such an absurd leap from what I said. No doubt no one wants to be bombed. But they almost certainly do want democracy - however that is achieved. I never said they did not want to be not invaded. You invented that. They want peace, security and democracy. I expect that the more reasonable of them know that the greater risk is arrest and torture by their own government rather than a US attack.

The simple fact is they dont want to be invaded, you said 'however that is achieved', look at the success of Hamas and and to a certain extent the Muslim Brotherhood, more people in the Middle East would like to see the Khilfa return than being invaded and killed to spread democracy, the way many speak and what we see it is very clear that they dont want the US forces thier. But if this is what you want to beleive then so be it.

And they work in the sense that they produce a rich, content, civil society here on Earth.

Civil society, its always good see people talking on the TV about the so called 'civilised world', I hate this wording it comes across as a term which has a sense of arrogance and superiority about it. The world is the same as its always been, okay we have devolped in many aspects of life since earlier times but when it comes down to it we are still the same, we refer to ourselves as civilised yet we can lock up young kids in Guantanamo Bay for instance on account of them being "enemy combatants", murder and rape still dominate societys, people dont even feel safe walking around at night and when leaving thier homes have a sense of fear of burgalry. What makes us think we are more 'civilised' than poorer nations? In fact the most kind hearted of people and genourus are those in poorer countries, people who are not out for themselves and nor like the society's we live in chasing/worshiping money and only thinking of number one, people who actually benefit mankind and care for humanity. Yet we label ourselves 'civilised'. Hei Gou, thats not really against you its just a general statement as its a term that is commonly used there days to show some sort of advancement in humanity when in reality when you look at the roots its still the same old game.

 

[hamzaa]

Peace Hamzaa, I'm not stating that these links PROVE the connection. These links simply provide another viewpoint. Neither of us will be able to prove or disprove the connection at this point.

Peace, just to reiterate do not be under the assumption held by many. That the invasion of iraq was due to possession of WMDs/terror connections.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

But what you do not understand is that there is a good reason why I am not oppressed and there is a good reason why all your brothers and sisters are. What do you think that is? I would argue that culture has a lot to do with it. So perhaps if you were interested in abolishing oppression you ought to listen to people who live without oppression? But of course if you are merely interested in oppressing others instead of being oppressed yourself, there is no point.

What did Babar Ahmad do? They accused him because he had a leaflet of the Empire state building that his father brought back from his trip to the states many years ago. Have you seen the injuries he suffered? Have you spoken to his wife? I have. You should know that she suffered a miscarriage because of the whole terrible ordeal. You have no idea how I felt after speaking with her. What exactly did he or she do to deserve that? Is that humane? To force someone into prostation and ask them where their God is now? So what exactly is it that you have done to deserve a normal life that they haven't? What hasn't a small Iraqi child done to avoid having their brains half spilling out? I'm really thinking, please inform me.

I am all for that. By all means, work to that end. Tell me, given you dislike of democracy how do you think that might arise except through oppression?

When did oppression occur during the conquest of Makkah, or during the migration to Madinah? It will only happen through the same manner, or we'll end up with a shabby excuse for a shari'ah like Iran or Saudi.